Twisted Knee Might Identify Alexander The Great's Father, But Some Are Skeptical

In a new article published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Antonis Bartsiokas and colleagues argue that skeletons from Tomb I at Vergina in Macedonia are those of Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great. This is in direct contrast to work published in May by Theo Antikas and Laura Wynn-Antikas, which concluded that skeletons in Tomb II at Vergina are those of Philip II and a Scythian princess.

Bartsiokas and colleagues' analysis of bones from Tomb I lead them to believe those are the mortal remains of Philip II. Namely, a knee injury in which the femur and tibia fused at an angle correlates well with historical accounts of Philip's having suffered a penetrating wound and consequent lameness. They further think that the female in Tomb I was Philip's wife Cleopatra and the neonate bones their child who was born just days before Philip's assassination.

This means that the bones from Tomb II, which Antikas and Wynn-Antikas think are those of Philip and an injured Scythian warrior princess, have to be explained. Bartsiokas and colleagues conclude that these must be the remains of Philip III Arridhaeus (Philip II's son and Alexander the Great's brother) and his wife Eurydice, although this identification seems based on historical information rather than any particular skeletal evidence. They also think that some of the archaeological artifacts in Tomb II may have belonged to Alexander the Great himself.

While Bartsiokas and colleagues trumpet these new interpretations as the final word on the identification of these skeletal remains, Antikas is not convinced. In a letter to the editor of PNAS, Antikas expresses concern over the fact that Bartsiokas and colleagues did not fully publish the skeletal remains from Tomb I, which Antikas found to include at least seven individuals as well as animal remains. The identification of the Tomb I occupants as Philip, Cleopatra, and their newborn is insufficiently supported by the evidence, according to Antikas, and not conclusive.

Rather than having Bartsiokas and colleagues have the last word on this fascinating tomb, Antikas argues for the need for carbon-14 dating and DNA analysis, neither of which has been done before on these remains.

With two interpretations of the same skeletal material at odds, it is perhaps best to withhold definitive conclusions until additional testing is done. Biochemical analyses are becoming increasingly common in bioarchaeological studies, and they are warranted in this case. Additionally, publication of the skeletal remains in concert with the archaeological evidence could also produce more plausible interpretations.